Could NGAD and F/A-XX Fighter Programs Merge Together?

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Key Points: The U.S. Navy and Air Force have differing visions for their sixth-generation fighter programs, the Navy’s F/A-XX and the Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program.

-Senator Mark Kelly has urged collaboration between the services, akin to the development of the F-35, which provided tailored variants for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.

-Critics of the F-35 highlight compromises made during its development, but its global adoption and operational flexibility showcase its success.

-The Air Force has paused its NGAD program due to rising costs and rapidly evolving technology, while the Navy continues to push forward with a multirole F/A-XX fighter for the 2030s.

NGAD vs. F/A-XX: Can They Build a Joint Sixth-Gen Fighter? 

On Saturday, one of the oldest rivalries in college football will occur – as the Army Black Knights of the United States Military Academy at West Point will face off against the Navy Midshipman of the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. It is the 125th meeting of the teams on the gridiron.

However, off the football field, the true rivalry has long been between the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force – largely because the two services have long had differing views on the role of military aviation. 

A key lawmaker has called for the service to collaborate more closely on their respective sixth-generation fighter programs.

The United States Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) and Navy’s F/A-XX (also officially named the NGAD) effort have had the same goal but with different airframes and propulsion systems. Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who currently sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said this week that the services should collaborate and take on a strategy that led to the development of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

“I would ultimately like to see — and I’ve stressed this to the Air Force and the Navy — that when we consider what we’re going to build next is [to] do what we did with the F-35, with a caveat to that,” Kelly said on Saturday during a meeting with reporters at the Reagan National Defense Forum, Defense Scope reported. “I think it helps if we can jointly build whatever the next system is. I think that would be a positive thing.”

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Redux?

Supporters of the F-35 would be in agreement with Kelly – and there is much to like about the F-35. The aircraft employs an internal weapons bay intended to enable attacks against an adversary while preserving a stealth configuration, yet can be utilized in a full-force attack  by employing the external pylons as well – which has become known as its “beast mode” or “bomb truck.”

The different weapon layouts are meant to accommodate a range of tactical scenarios.

The “First Day of War” loadout would preserve the “stealth” configuration and could consist of four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles for air-to-air missions, or a mixture of four AIM-120s/GBU-31 JDAM “smart bombs,” for air-to-ground missions, all of which would be loaded into the F-35’s internal armaments bay. As the name implies, stealth load-outs are designed to minimize radar cross-section and to maintain low observability (LO) when the enemy’s anti-air systems are operating at full capacity.

As an adversary’s hostile anti-air systems – including sensors, air defense missiles, gun systems, and even enemy aircraft – are eliminated, and the conflict enters into the “Third Day of War,” the loadout would change accordingly. When it is determined that the F-35 no longer needs to rely on its stealth and LO for survivability the “beast mode” comes into play as the F-35 then deploys externally-mounted weapons with a larger radar footprint.

In addition to different modes, the F-35 was designed to accommodate the needs of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.

The Air Force operates the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A, while the Navy adopted the F-35C, a carrier-specific version that features a larger wingspan and more robust landing gear, enabling it suitable for catapult launches, and arrestment recovery aboard the service’s aircraft carriers. The USMC operates the F-35C, but also the F-35B – a short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant that can employed from the Navy’s amphibious assault ships.

The F-35 has also been adopted by 19 allied and partner nations around the world. The U.S. plans to procure at least 1,763, and already more than 1,000 have been delivered to clients.

Differing Directions

While the F-35 Lightning II provided three operators of fighters with a one-size-fits-all solution, critics have maintained it resulted in aircraft that were far from perfect and meant some compromises were made. As a result, the Air Force has sought a manned sixth-gen air superiority fighter to replace the aging F-22 Raptor. It would also be part of a system of systems, supported by lower-cost unmanned aerial combat vehicles (UACVs) serving as “loyal wingmen.”

The Air Force had originally sought to award a contract for the fighter by the end of this year, but due to ballooning costs, the program was put on pause. Officials also expressed concern that as key technologies are advancing at an increasing rate, a manned fighter designed in 2024 could be obsolete even before it could enter service.

The Navy has continued to move forward with the F/A-XX, which not surprisingly would seek to replace the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet. Whereas the Air Force has primarily focused on air superiority, the Navy would seek a multirole aircraft, which could enter service in the 2030s.

Senator Kelly has acknowledged that the Air Force’s decision to pause the program was likely a smart move and said a focus should be put on what our adversaries are developing.

“These high-value assets are going to be held at risk. And how are we going to best deal with it? Maybe it is a sixth-gen fighter,” Kelly added. “I think some of this technology has advanced very quickly, so I do agree with the secretary of the Air Force that it is appropriate to kind of take a pause here and figure out what direction we should go.”

Whether that sees the Air Force and Navy going in the same direction is still the question that will need to be answered.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Senior Editor focusing on defense issues for 19FortyFive. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,500 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on X: @PeterSuciu – and on Bluesky: @petersuciu.bsky.social.